Privacy And Press Freedom

The Englishman's home is his castle, or so generations of Britons ha thought. The British have long been obsessed with privacy and this obsession has provoked considerable debate amongst legislators, lawyers and the media. In recent years, the controversy has raged on with, on one hand, the media claiming public interest, and on the other, public figures claiming invasion of their privacy. This title argues that the freedom of the press can be reconciled with the right of privacy. Following an account of the justification for free speech and privacy and a careful analysis of the law, the author argues that the combined force of three recent developments provides adequate means for the exercise of judicial recognition of individual's right to privacy: the expanding remedy for breach of confidence the revived action for the infliction of emotional distress and the growing influence of international recognition of "privacy" especially the jurisprudence of the European Convention of Human Rights.

A critical examination of the balance between the freedom of the media and the legal protection of privacy, this book examines the struggle to reconcile privacy and freedom of expression in the face of the increasingly sensationalist media, and the relentless advances in technology.

In 1952, the Hill family was held hostage by escaped convicts in their suburban Pennsylvania home. The family of seven was trapped for nineteen hours by three fugitives who treated them politely, took their clothes and car, and left them unharmed. The Hills quickly became the subject of international media coverage. Public interest eventually died out, and the Hills went back to their ordinary, obscure lives. Until, a few years later, the Hills were once again unwillingly thrust into the spotlight by the media—with a best-selling novel loosely based on their ordeal, a play, a big-budget Hollywood adaptation starring Humphrey Bogart, and an article in Life magazine. Newsworthy is the story of their story, the media firestorm that ensued, and their legal fight to end unwanted, embarrassing, distorted public exposure that ended in personal tragedy. This story led to an important 1967 Supreme Court decision—Time, Inc. v. Hill—that still influences our approach to privacy and freedom of the press. Newsworthy draws on personal interviews, unexplored legal records, and archival material, including the papers and correspondence of Richard Nixon (who, prior to his presidency, was a Wall Street lawyer and argued the Hill family's case before the Supreme Court), Leonard Garment, Joseph Hayes, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William Douglas, and Abe Fortas. Samantha Barbas explores the legal, cultural, and political wars waged around this seminal privacy and First Amendment case. This is a story of how American law and culture struggled to define and reconcile the right of privacy and the rights of the press at a critical point in history—when the news media were at the peak of their authority and when cultural and political exigencies pushed free expression rights to the forefront of social debate. Newsworthy weaves together a fascinating account of the rise of big media in America and the public's complex, ongoing love-hate affair with the press.

Leading experts from common law jurisdictions examine defamation and privacy, two major and interrelated issues for law and media.

This new title covers the law surrounding freedom of press versus rights of the individual, including in depth analysis of the review of UK libel law and the draft Defamation Bill published in March 2011. Contents includes: History and development of libel laws in the UK and USA; Actions brought by US personalities in the UK Courts; The ramifications of the Rachel Ehrenfeld case; Importance of striking a balance between an unfettered press reporting in the public interest and one-sided coverage of particular issues; The argument for statutory press regulation; Level of damages awarded in comparison to costs involved; Super-injunctions; Anticipated changes to the law; Alternative remedies; Difficulties facing Claimants without access to legal aid; Implications arising from the phone hacking scandal.

Do we need a law of privacy? Should judges be allowed to stop us reading about a footballer's adultery or enjoying pictures of a film star's wedding? This book explores how the law balances the right to privacy with the freedom of the press.

This timely book explores how the internet and social media have permanently altered the media landscape, enabling new actors to enter the marketplace, and changing the way that news is generated, published and consumed. It examines the importance of citizen journalists, whose newsgathering and publication activities have made them crucial to public discourse and central actors in the communication revolution. Investigating how the internet and social media have enabled citizen journalism to flourish, and what this means for the traditional institutional press, the public sphere, and media freedom, the book demonstrates how communication and legal theory are applied in practice.

In determining the news that’s fit to print, U.S. courts have traditionally declined to second-guess professional journalists. But in an age when news, entertainment, and new media outlets are constantly pushing the envelope of acceptable content, the consensus over press freedoms is eroding. The First Amendment Bubble examines how unbridled media are endangering the constitutional privileges journalists gained in the past century. For decades, judges have generally affirmed that individual privacy takes a back seat to the public’s right to know. But the growth of the Internet and the resulting market pressures on traditional journalism have made it ever harder to distinguish public from private, news from titillation, journalists from provocateurs. Is a television program that outs criminals or a website that posts salacious videos entitled to First Amendment protections based on newsworthiness? U.S. courts are increasingly inclined to answer no, demonstrating new resolve in protecting individuals from invasive media scrutiny and enforcing their own sense of the proper boundaries of news. This judicial backlash now extends beyond ethically dubious purveyors of infotainment, to mainstream journalists, who are seeing their ability to investigate crime and corruption curtailed. Yet many—heedless of judicial demands for accountability—continue to push for ever broader constitutional privileges. In so doing, Amy Gajda warns, they may be creating a First Amendment bubble that will rupture in the courts, with disastrous consequences for conventional news.